120
Court finds ALPR (Flock) was an unconstitutional search & 4A violation. (positive news) (storage.courtlistener.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I made up the title b/c the URL is to the court's finding. Doesn't have a title per se.

TLDR (ruling is 38 pages, so this is BRIEF gd!)

Driver was stopped for following too close. Officer gave warning, but no citation. Officer ran ALPR history, then searched car based on ALPR. Driver admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, which officer said he didn't care about, and was only after hard drugs. ALPR history had driver driving a long distance for a short visit to the state.

Court ruled:

  1. Traffic stop was legal and justified by observed violation. Officer had reasonable basis to stop driver.

  2. The subsequent search was NOT constitutional, since officer did not have a warrant for ALPR data, and had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Result from ruling,

(Driver) has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data which tracked her movements over several weeks. .... The ALPR search was an unreasonable governmental intrusion of protected privacy rights.

Vehicle search result was quashed.

There's lots more nuance in the linked filing. Also citations. It's really good IMO. It balances the privacy of the driver's vehicle with the legit justification for the stop. It also notes how "persistent, dragnet surveilence" differs from other kinds. Kudos to judge Sara Hill for really digging in and understanding the privacy issues, esp around pg 28+ of the ruling.

It's long but totally worth a read. The case does not set a binding precedent.

The legal situation is FAR from perfect. But I hope just once we can have a thread where a ton of ppl don't immediately go, "this good privacy news is useless b/c it does not solve every single problem every single time!" It is evidence in favor of a slow but meaningful shift in ALPR jurisprudence. It stands along side recent SCOTUS rulings that also boost location data privacy, like Chatrie v United States and Carpenter v United States.

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Now do alprs in general

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago

    Jurisprudence changes VERY slowly, and for good reasons. But I believe there is movement in a good direction about location data privacy.

    For a long time, the thinking was, there is no expectation of privacy in public so your location in public is not 4A protected. That was kinda reasonable 50 years ago, before massive scale data aggregation. In recent years the courts are slowly recognizing that indescriminate aggregation of loc history creates a difference in kind. The "entirety of your movements" should enjoy 4A protection, even tho a single observation of your loc is not protected.

    The courts are not a monolith. There are hundreds of thousands of judges each with their own views. The system changes slowly. There are judges still adhering to the "no expectation of privacy in public" idea. But there is a shift happening. Even SCOTUS has started to recognize that dragnet loc surveilence is a problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    The software companies don't care about what is or isn't legal. These are computer systems and computer systems are dictatorial. There could be a function to have information requests be authorized by whatever body has that remit, but they didn't implement such a function. They don't, they won't and they don't want to.

    Move fast and break things. lol laws don't apply to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    This is great news and what I expected should be considered illegal. What i don't understand is how nearly all ICE searches are not considered dragnets, and thus illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    3 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    It's a glimmer of hope in an ocean of sewage. I'll fucking take it. Thanks for the TLDR

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    We need a judge to set precident. If I did what flock dose, I would be called a stalker, get a restraining order, maybe be arrested..... But flock gets away with it because its a mesh of cameras. We need to adjust the privacy laws in public to say constant electronic surveillance is illegal and akin to personal stalking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Wow! What a great read.

    The terrorists preying upon our women and throwing society into a state of perpetual persecution failed at even issuing a well deserved ticket for tailgating.

    Instead the highwayman and political activist clergy proceeded in terrorizing a rando person for the crime of existing and breathing.

    The political activist clergy edict clearly documents this fact.

    The highwayman is even shown on camera using a mass surveillance service. Which they know is highly illegal. He is not in jail cuz he is a member of this mafia and in cahoots with the political activist clergy class.

    The highwaymen and political activist clergy, for allow it, should be sued. If no legal remedy is on offer, the society itself should reject them in their entirety.

    It's a clear as day violation of the 4A and any form of decency. And points to them being terrorists and not public servants as they'd have you believe.

    Do you think the defendant, now, feels she has freedom to travel unimpeded? Does she now hide in fear of leaving her house?

    Fck the 4A, this is a violation of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without prior approval and ritualized acts of submission and compliance. And illegal detention that she is punished by the process.

    Fck these people! They are clearly terrorists who both got paid for this theater, while society gets dragged thru the mud for their personal gain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    1 comment in c/DeFlock@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

    This is a Tenth Circuit federal court of appeals, which means this case has already been through the lower courts and the lawyers' arguments have been pretty thoroughly legally tested. The precedent may not be binding (yet) but it can only be overturned by the Supreme Court at this point.

    This is good. I would bet that the Supreme Court doesn't want to make a ruling and set a hard precedent on this issue, and will probably refuse to hear any potential appeals and let the lower court's ruling stand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •